Wednesday, 30 November 2016

An 'international' perspective is fine and good when it comes to the Christian religion, and the mystical and literal fact of us all being God's children; but within that context patriotism - indeed regionalism, localism and parochialism - is the natural and healthy basic stance for any real environmentalist.

But the bought-and-sold and thoroughly-subverted modern Green political movement is relentlessly inter-nationalist - being far more fascinated by travellers' tales from exotic places than the doings of the actual neighbours; and being cravenly servile to the globalising agenda of the international super-rich cabal of billionaires and mega-celebrities whose exclusive meetings are (apparently) festivals of idealistic environmentalism...

The Greens' 'global agenda' (especially in relation to Climate Change) is a perfect excuse to impose centralised totalitarian systems of bureaucratic universal monitoring and micro-control - with obscene bribes and harsh punishments as the carrots and sticks.

(What place in these strategic plans for the bloody-minded independent farmer with his family living off 'three acres and a cow'?)

The same applies to their spirituality - which is usually some kind of eclectic sampling of remote Eastern religions; Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi, Jain or whatever - the important thing being that in the form adopted it does not constrain their devotion to the possibilities of an ever-expanding sexual revolution, identity politics- and all the rest of the mainstream Leftism which a non-negotiable core to the modern Greens.

By contrast, the older environmental writers were quite naturally loyal-to, patriotic-about, and focused-on, the good aspects of their locality.

If we seek power for its own sake, we may expect to be continually disappointed with the fruits of our effort; because the whole of creation is weighted against us. The reason is that success in this endeavour would be a negative factor in our spiritual education and tend to destroy the potential of our real consciousness.
In the same way that we keep dangerous and powerful artifacts out of the range of our childrens' grasp, so God has arranged for the real power of the universe to be kept out of our grasp. Power exists for us in direct ratio to the extent that we succeed in bringing our absolute nature to a condition of resonant life. This power then works for us quite spontaneously to reproduce in all our surroundings a 'drama' which represents the significance of our true Being. In this way our own true nature is caused to be portrayed for us externally, in order that we can know it as an objective experience; as well as an experience in our inner sensibility. Our true Will Power (aligned with divine destiny) causes people and situations to come together in our environment, so that they may live out for one another the whole significance of the quality of their true being.

This purposive arranging of multiple environmental aspects does, of course, take a long time at the physical level. But those aspects which are expressed as higher spiritual levels are not under the same restrictive and sluggish constraints as the physical level; and can be experienced by us in great quantities and at great speed. Our personal experience of freedom and fulfilment therefore consists in recognising that much of our condition has already been fixed for us, for our own eternal benefit. We find ourselves in a situation where Life will try to force us to pay attention to qualities rather than quantities; and to keep and use our individual true nature; even when we consciously attempt to avoid what we need and shed our true nature in favour of some superficial desire.

(Edited and explicated from pages 212-3 of Chapter 16 The Will, in A Geography of Consciousness by William Arkle - published 1974.)

Note: I find this analysis very satisfying and convincing as a picture of why we each are in the situation in which we find ourselves, and what to do about it.

My impression is that I came to consciousness with a personality and set of motivations that had been corrupted by all sorts of false desires and distorted notions - and I now count myself fortunate (and blessed) that so few of these were allowed to come to pass.

Those desires which - by stubborn will power - I did 'succeed' in forcing-upon myself and the world, invariably led to bad, unsatisfying and tormenting outcomes that pulled me up short and - eventually, after denials and further fruitless efforts - compelled me recognise my stupidity and errors.

It also strikes me that the horrors of Radical, 'progressive', Leftist, secular activism over the past few centuries can be seen in this light; as a direct consequence of the cultural implantation of a multitude of false, superficial and harmful desires for oneself and the world - and the encouragement to force-these-upon the world by the sheer intransigence of our personal and collective will...

...An attitude that invariably lead to disappointing, bad, perverse and even inverted outcomes (outcomes which invite - but seldom lead to - repentance).

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

The only uncorrupted heirs of Small is Beautiful are apparently the 'Distributists' - such as Joseph Pearce or the late Stratford Caldecott, or Albion Awakening's own John Fitzgerald - these being traditionalist Roman Catholics who derive their intellectual ancestry from Hillaire Belloc (e.g. The Servile State), and the dream of a truly Merrie England so vividly described and advocated by GK Chesterton.

As seems universal, only those whose beliefs are underpinned by traditionalist, patriarchal and family-oriented religion have proven both willing and able to avoid the self-deceptive lies and inversions of the modern secular-Left corporate-media-state complex.

Meanwhile most of the self-styled Green/ Environmentalists are (on the key issues) docile dupes and sinister-sell-outs; indistinguishable from the mainstream soft-totalitarians they claim to oppose but who they invariably end-up supporting.

The work of Rudolf Steiner contains great (perhaps indispensable, at least for some people) wisdom and insight; but also over-confidence, folly and error - and the reason was, I believe, that he failed to take seriously that his method of Spiritual Science was (by his own account) a Scientific discipline and therefore, as such, as difficult as any other science.

Science is not some kind of standard, algorithmic technique which may be generally-applied, neither is it a machine for generating truth from data, neither does it reliably yield valid answers for any question (however ill-formed) you care to ask of it.

On the contrary; making a genuine breakthrough in science typically requires prolonged effort ('brooding') - intense and repeated attempts over a considerable timescale.

Unfortunately, especially later in his career, Steiner seems to have assumed that answers were to be had for the asking; and he got into a habit of using his 'method' of meditation to answer questions about anything which came to mind, or questions that were put to him by almost anybody - and he came to expect, and generated, rapid and copious answers to these questions.

Steiner became somewhat like a machine - speak or write a question, he would go-through the 'spiritual science' process, and he unfailingly gave forth a detailed answer.

Unsurprisingly, most of what he produced in this fashion comes across as artificially manufactured, arbitrary, and often clearly invalid. This, at any rate, is my explanation for Steiner's vast and hyper-precise schemata of multiple thousands of years of world spiritual and physical history and future inevitabilities, details about many specific human reincarnations, and schemes for the practise of pretty much all the major human political and societal activities...

(This mechanical productivity also comes across in Steiner's spiritual 'exercises' for meditation which are often on arbitrary topics without any personal significance for the trainee. This is to assume than anybody can do science on any topic, is motivated to do science on any topic; when almost the opposite is the case - each individual can only do good science on problems in which he has a genuine, deep and spontaneous interest.)

In real science (whether natural or spiritual) there has to be a genuine, strong inner-motivation to know the answer - to know the truth about some-thing. Only some people have this motivation - and of these, only some of them have the ability (and 'luck') to reach the answer.

Also, a large part of science is learning the correct question to ask (and the exact nature of the answer being sought - typically this is unclear in the early stages) - since most questions are badly-constructed because containing false assumptions; hence they are un-answerable. The process of trying to find an answer usually takes a long time - because the necessary pieces of evidence must be assembled, and often re-interpreted.

Quite often, after prolonged brooding, the properly-formed question and its valid answer arrive in the mind together, simultaneously.

My conclusion is that for Steiner's Spiritual Science to achieve its great potential - and to take its part as part of Man's individual and social destiny (but only if he chooses to embrace it) - requires a greater awareness of the requirements of Science; especially that each must find his own problem which most deeply concerns him.

This specific problem then becomes the basis for learning, developing, applying the general method of Spiritual Science - which especially includes a particular kind of Thinking*

A great insight of Rudolf Steiner's, and one which should be of special relevance to all intellectuals; was that thinking is potentially a superb means of becoming aware of, understanding, and learning from the spiritual world beyond the five senses.

The comnon tendency is to suppose that spiritual knowing only comes from visions or hearing voices, from being overwhelmed by conviction, and in altered states of consciousness such as trances, lucid dreams or when in ill or intoxicated situations.

But Steiner (who perhaps generated more material, more words, on the subject of spiritual experience and knowledge than anybody else, ever) affirmed many times that thinking was not only possible but the best method of attaining spiritual knowledge.

Of course, we know that we can think about (almost) anything; and that is the basis of Steiner's insight. But the question is about the validity of this thinking.

There are many, obvious objections to Steiner's claim - and of course he does not mean that all thinking is always spiritually valid (that would be silly); rather he is claiming that clear, focused, purposive thinking, when directed towards certain subjects, and with certain motivations, is a source of spiritual knowledge - but he is always insistent that this aimed-at type of thinking has a form much more like the lucidity and alert-awakeness of scientific thinking; than it is like any state of 'possession', or anything dreamy or psychotic.

To do this; thinking should be embarked-upon in an undistracted situation where concentration and clarity are possible, and directed towards thinking about spiritual subjects of compelling (spontaneous) personal interest.

Once some purchase is obtained, some knowledge emerges as convincing; then thinking will move more and more into the spiritual world - and expand into the world of reality beyond the five senses.

In other words, we need not 'perceive' the spiritual world with 'senses' (as 'hallucinations') - rather, we can think the spiritual world: or, we perceive by thinking.

To get started on this requires no more than to become convinced that thinking (of this kind) may be a valid source of true knowledge; and to put it to the test of experience.

Note: Why should thinking be valid as a source of spiritual knowedge? The ultimate answer must be that it is built-into us, by God, for such a purpose. But it has not been much used in past ages as a source of super-sensory knowledge because this type of scientific thinking requires a 'modern' autonomous self - and this is why it is the destined primary spiritual method of the future.

We should feel the possibility that our love and friendship matters to our God; for if He is the very wise person who we consider Him to be, then we must look carefully at the nature of such wisdom.

If we had a very wise person sitting with us, in conversation in our living room in our house on earth, this person would be learning more from us than we were learning from him; although he had more wisdom to give us, as it were.

The reason seems to be that wisdom grows at an accelerating rate; the more it has, the more it can get.

Therefore, when we think about our God in the future, we should consider that, if He is keenly involved with us in our attempts to grow, then this does not feel to Him in any way a diminishment. Our God cannot condescend to us, because there is nothing in Him which is able to condescend, for everything to Him is enthralling, educative and beautiful.

If we could witness this meeting of God with ourselves, we may well consider that our God was very humble; but this attitude, which appears to us as condescending and humble, is a natural result of His possessing a high degree of wisdom.

It is a hard thought to bear, but we would get bored with God long before He could ever become bored with us.

We have to remember that we are behaving mechanically most of the time, and that most of the time our true awareness is not functioning through our personality at all.

In fact, if we could remember to put ourselves in God's place, just once in a while, we would very quickly stop doing many of the things that we consider are 'proper' forms of humility and reverence.

A few moments of true love are worth any amount of valuing for any other reason whatsoever.

Monday, 28 November 2016

I often detect a furtive hope that The West will become good by stealth; perhaps insensibly, painlessly, by small incremental degrees... That a wise ruler may introduce reforms such that people are led insensibly back to good lives; or that sheer luck might lead us to stumble on what needs to be done...

Another variant is that some secular mainstream political figure may lead The West back (or forward) into a spiritual and Christian life; either by covert concealment of his true beliefs, or what he is doing, or simply by applying common sense and realism.

These are nonsensical, dangerous and deeply false ideas: goodness requires, absolutely requires, self-awareness of what one is doing and why. Otherwise it is not goodness.

The idea of a Born Again Christian has been a running joke among the intellectual elites for several decades - yet it is a necessary (but insufficient) aspect of being or becoming a Christian - even (or especially) for those who have been raised in the faith and lead exemplary lives.

Christianity is not a matter of doing good things, performing good behaviours, having good policies - anybody (an animal, even) might be trained or coerced to 'do good things'.

We cannot have goodness except by wanting it and knowing that we want it; a person or nation that has been leading a wicked life - systematically and strategically destructive of truth, beauty and virtue - cannot stop then reverse the down-escalator to damnation without everybody being aware of a lurch!

We must acknowledge our chronic and deliberate errors and wickednesses, and repent them, before we can reform our live or society in the ways that are necessary. This will not and cannot happen except in conscious awareness.

...Cuthbert was persuaded that he had been visited by an angel. This
inspired him to become a monk and devote himself entirely to God. He
then spent several years as a priest travelling around the north of the
country doing missionary work and spreading the word of the Gospel which
at that time was still fairly shallow rooted in those parts. He was
much respected for his asceticism and much loved for his kindness to the
sick and the poor. He even gained a reputation for healing to such a
degree that he became known as the Wonder Worker of Britain.

Sunday, 27 November 2016

Since 2010, I have been trying to infiltrate (unconcealed, upfront, in full daylight) and convert the secular Right movements such as Alt-Right, Neoreaction, Dark Enlightenment, the Manosphere...

This began from when I started work on my book Thought Prison - the fundamental nature of political correctness (http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk) and has continued. I published a few Essays in the original Alternative Right webzine - and perhaps as a result was put onto the Dark Enlightenment 'map' among the Christian Traditionalists (http://neorxn.com/introduction). Indeed, for the past few years I have gotten most of my blog traffic from the aggregator neorxn.com.

All this suggests to me that there must be a considerable spiritual hunger, indeed a specific interest in Christianity, among the secular Right - but, aside from a few individuals, the movement remains secular, and indeed net anti-Christian.

Why should this be? There are two reasons - one good, the other an error. The good reason is that the bulk of visible and self-identified Christianity - including the main Western denominations - is thoroughly corrupted with the worst kind of Left/ Liberalism: indeed it is not just 'corrupted'; rather these churches are primarily Leftist, and their Christianity is just a matter of jargon and 'lifestyle.

The error is that Christianity (or The Reformation) is blamed for Leftism (as in the 'Leftism is a Christian Heresy' meme). The truth is that Leftism was in its primary origins a mixture of atheism and apostasy - caused not by Christian devoutness, but by its lack.

However, the stark fact remains that the Organised Western Christianity which confronts a new Rightist is elderly, feeble, feminised, cowardly, and unspiritual. While there are some smaller corners and cells of Western Churches that are young, vigorous, patriarchal, and family-oriented; these are hard to find, and (rightly) exclusive and excluding with regard to membership - so not everybody can find a niche in any of the available alternatives. (I can't.)

All I can say is that people should not be put-off Christianity by any of this. Christianity is of immense power and potency - a deep well of courage and love - even when pursued as a personal faith - outside the churches.

I therefore say to anyone on the secular Right - don't wait to find a church: become a Christian first; and only then look around for a suitable congregation and denomination.

As Christian - explicitly, to yourself and others - your whole outlook on reality will be positively transformed in ways you can scarcely imagine; and then... who knows?

The mass of 'well-meaning' Leftist bureaucrats and propagandists are the Wormtongues - the middle managers of evil; whose ambitions go no higher than bossing minions and henchmen, careerism and sex - plus a bit of petty schadenfreude and sadism. All in the name of a better world...

But Wormtongue works for Saruman; who is like the political leaders of The West - all high rhetoric and ultimate goals, master of persuasion and propaganda masking a mind of metal and wheels. All 'regrettable sacrifices' and fake nobility. Disguising a desire to become...

Sauron - aspiring demon tyrant-god of this world; seeking the total and willing submission of a planet of servants and slaves; seeking order by total control and terrified worship. But ultimately Sauron too is merely an agent of his god...

Morgoth - the devil. What does he want? What Morgoth wants does not make sense because it is negation and paradox.

*

Morgoth loathes God the creator and he loathes all of creation; because Morgoth is and was and ever shall be second to Him.

And because God made Morgoth, Morgoth hates himself; he wants to be the creator yet also to marr and subvert all of creation.

Ultimately Morgoth wants to annihilate everything except himself - and then he would be forcedto destroy himself, being the last remnant of divine creation.

Only when the universe is wiped-clear of all creation will Morgoth be 'satisfied' - by eliminating all satisfaction.

Morgoth is the ultimate nihilist - he desires to replace everything with nothing.

Thus a system of 'hard-nosed', bottom-line materialism, power and gratification is eventually underpinned by pure negative insanity.

*

This is the hierarchy of Leftism - at each level except the final one, there are what appear to be 'constructive' projects, goals and aims. Each level sees the world in terms of its own satisfactions...

Yet eventually all success at lower levels of evil feeds the domination of the level above, and the level above that; and as the project of evil advances, so it becomes ever more the simple and sheer negation of Good.

(This we are beginning to perceive, ever more clearly. Leftism is eventually merely the destruction of all Good.)

The lower levels of evil are self-consumed or destroyed as the project proceeds - the positive goals (Wormtongue's greed, lust, spite - his life) eliminated from the bottom-up - and behind it all Morgoth feeds upon the negative energies, growing larger, stronger...

When will the mass of Wormtongues and his minions and henchmen, the many Sarumans and Sauron above them - realise that their ultimate justification of their vague Utopian goals and uncompromising aspirations for 'justice' is - deep-down - nothing more than the insane, non-sensical, everything-destroying, self-loathing of Morgoth?

Saturday, 26 November 2016

I very seldom publish Anonymous comments - but many of my commenters use pseudonyms. Of these, I am aware of the identity of quite a few - mostly through personal e-mail contacts; sometimes through finding-out who they are for myself, by following links, or doing my own web searches.

I certainly have a different attitude to comments from people whose identities I know, than I do to 'some random, unidentified pseudonymous character' who leaves a comment, or many comments.

The difference is that I treat the known commenters with much greater 'respect' (although this may not be obvious; since I am an unusually irritable and bad tempered individual!)

It seems to me that many pseudonymous commenters expect to be treated as individuals, and with a consideration and courtesy that - to me - seems appropriate and natural only to those with whom I have some kind of personal relationship...

At any rate I find myself relatively indifferent to the 'feelings' of pseudonymous-unidentified commenters as compared with how I deal with comments from those whose identity I know.

I don't apologise for this! It seems only natural and proper to treat people differently and worse in the context of a one-sided interaction where they know all about me; but I know nothing of them.

It is (psychologically) rather as if we were having a face-to-face conversation during which they insisted on wearing a mask and speaking via a voice-disguiser!

When Men come into contact with elves or fairies, there may be antagonism - and the outcome can go either way...

In Seven Hundred Elves the tale is told about how the advent of Man destroys much that the elves hold dear (environmental damage due to intensive agriculture etc), and how they fought back - but were defeated and banished by Christian symbols... Chilling.

Better sound and a more polished perfomance is on the full album, first track:

On the other hand, in this song a young girl responds to an Elf Call to care for an elven child - but when the experience palls, discovers there is no going-back (I especially like the tasteful bass improvisation - Rick Kemp - during the playout):

On yet another hand, the Wee Wee Man - a friendly fairy is encountered and there is a bit of showing-off from him - but in the end the fairy and everything else disappears - and nothing much happens!

Friday, 25 November 2016

About a decade ago I was (with my colleague Peter Andras) doing a lot of scientometric research on university research performance (mainly in the sciences) - and (because I wrote regularly for the Oxford Magazine) we looked closely at the performance of Oxford, relative to other British Universities.

To our surprise, we found that Oxford did not stand out from other British universities - except in volume of production. Once we too account of the number of people, the quality of research (insofar as quality could be measured scientometrically - which is not very validly - albeit the direction of bias would tend to favour, not disadvantage, Oxford) didn't seem any different from the other big British research orientated universities.

(Later on, we found much the same for Harvard. MIT - on the other hand - was outstanding!)

Note: I completely stopped doing scientometrics, mainly because nobody at all was interested. Universities nowadays are run by managers - and managers are not interested in objective research - indeed they are actively hostile: they just want to cherry pick the data to justify doing what they have already decided to do.

I feel that the (pseudo-) anonymity of the web is a pracise and a pretense that ought now to be dropped - people that use pseudonyms and write anonymously ought to begin publishing under their own names.

The fake anonymity of the web (fake because it is so easily broken by those who have power, when they wish to break it) was never a very good thing, on balance; but now I think it has become actively dangerous - it is encouraging a counter-productive frame of mind, it is playing-into the evil plans of the Establishment.

'They' want us to have the mind-set of fear that is induced by cowering in a shallow foxhole of trivially-easily un-masked denied or fake identity; invisibly lobbing out the occasional random grenade, or peeping-out briefly to take a quick pot-shot before ducking down and cowering again.

The fact is that - as I know from personal experience - when the Politically Correct Left, the Social Justice Warriors, want to 'get' somebody - then they do. Anonymity is no defence at all. They will instantly and without hestitation invent assertions and make-up 'quotes' which will be swiftly and irresistably propagated by the mass media - and their lies will be believed by the vast herds of docile addicts that consume the mass media.

This just is the situation - we need to know it, and refuse to fear it.

In the strategy to engineer the world ino a state of self-induced, self-desired, voluntary damnation and ruin: Fear Is The Key. Our prime directive is therefore to overcome fear.

Ano-/ Pseudo-nymity is a delusion; but one which encourages and enforces a state of deep existential dread.

The only viable strategy in a world of omni-surveillance is to find the courage to operate under your own name; and aim always to be honest about all things at all times.

That is not 'safe'; but then nothing is safe -- the point is not to crave an illusory safety but to live with what integrity, courage and love you can muster -- and eagerly repent your inevitable multiple failures to do so.

If/ When the firestorms come, refuse to engage the enemy on their level; maintain your high ideals and honest, loving integrity; trust in God -- and ride out the conflagration as best you can.

Afterwards, lick your wounds, brush yourself down - and start again.

NOTE ADDED: Part of this is that my feeling, at this time, is that we each of us need to be ready to speak the truth as we perceive it... Not mainly in the sense of shouting it from the rooftops or in the public forum; but in the sense of face-to-face, in small rooms and among small groups, a time may well come to each of us when it is absolutely essential that we do the right thing (perhaps speak a single word) - and upon this a great deal may hinge that we (at that time) are unaware of (but which will later become apparent).

This means we must get into the habit of truth - otherwise it is very unlikely whether we will do the right thing, when it comes to it. Part of this seems to be getting-used to 'speaking' under our own names, and without the psychological crutch of a veil (however flimsy, in reality).

"Before I'd even read a word of Lewis I had stood enchanted in our
suburban South Manchester bookshop, captivated by the cover of The Last Battle - the bonfire, the stable, Jill's bow and arrows, Eustace's sword, and the mighty red lion emblazoned on Tirian's shield."

***

The early-1980s, in Britain, felt like an especially intense time to be a pre-adolescent.

It was an era of style and colour, but also of riots, recession, and the ever-present threat of nuclear catastrophe. A local newspaper ran a series of articles on Nostradamus, and I was convinced that the end of the world was at hand.

I also believed, at that time, that there existed an eighth Narnia book, not a continuation, nor fan-fiction, but something on an altogether different level - a secret, hidden text that contained the essence and magic of Narnia, distilling it into a story, like to the one that Aslan had told us in the courtyard, setting off in its readers and hearers a reaction akin to Jewel's in The Last Battle: 'I have come home at last! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now. The reason why we loved the old Narnia is that it sometimes looked a little like this.'

I was certain that before the final conflagration took place this book would reveal itself and make its holy yet homely presence felt in the world.

I hoped and prayed that I might be present when it did, and often I would imagine our school's classrooms and corridors dissolving and giving way to the stone passageways, cavernous halls and lantern-lit chambers of the Grail Castle itself.

In a tiny chapel, I was sure, at the top of a spiral staircase, the Grail and the eighth Narnia book stood between the candles on the altar, waiting for the appointed hour - the Kairos, the supreme moment - to roll around at last.

Thursday, 24 November 2016

'Shipping' seems to be derived from relation-ship-ing; and I first heard the term in relation to the on-going Harry Potter series - when online 'fans' would spend vast amounts of effort and time in discussion the nature and possible future of relationships between Harry and Hermione, Harry and Cho, Ron and Hermione, Snape and Lily and so on.

Fan Fiction rapidly began to burgeon with shipping narratives; including what used to be termed 'slash' fiction (derived from an earlier era of Kirk/ (the slash punctuation mark) Spock stories - i.e. 'shipping' Kirk and Spock).

I first came across slash around the time of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies - when there seemed to be a lot of slash Fan Fiction products (some parody, some serious, some pornographic).

Shipping, in a general sense (including slash) is now very prevalent in fandom - almost to the point of dominating some of the most popular TV shows, movie franchises and teen novels. Indeed, it seems that 'shippers' (those who do the shipping, write the fictions and discuss it endlessly) are setting the agenda and framing the discourse.

I regard shipping as mostly an appalling corruption and degradation of fiction; and I suspect the motivations of those involved. In particular, I deplore the trend to re-frame all friendship in sexual (or potentially sexual - will they-won't they?- or dishonestly-denied sexual) terms.

(The Netflix TV series of Shadowhunters, and the books themselves, as I understand, are serial practitioners of this trope.)

This began in the sixties - for example William Ready's early biographical and critical book about Tolkien suggested the Inklings was a kind-of homosexual grouping. But now it appears that the subversion is simply taken from granted; and that the friendships of Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, Legolas and Gimli are simply assumed to be slash-until-proven-otherwise.

Likewise the fandoms of all traditionalist recent narratives, from Harry Potter, through Strange and Norrell, to Star Trek and My Little Pony to whatever latest blockbuster TV series - are seen through the lens of shipping - as mere fodder for sexual speculation and fantasy.

And since the modern sexual arena is so debased by superficiality, fickleness, selfishness and exploitativeness, this has the effects of dragging a lot of potentially elevating and ennobling and inspiring work down to the level of salacious sniggering.

As I say, I don't think this is a random occurrence - indeed, I strongly suspect that there is a degree of conspiracy, funding, planning and purpose behind (and manipulating) this systematic debasement of The Good - wherever it is found.

The mass of fans are, mostly, victims; but in return for short term stimulation they are colluding in trivialising and destroying exactly what they find most valuable about the things they love.

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

...Dissonance was, perversely, embraced by the corruption of modernity
as an ideal in its own right - even when there was no independence of
voices, but block chords. So, the individual is symbolically denied
independence and agency - but in-effect forced to participate in
dissonance.The future? - well perhaps it can musically
be gestured-at by independence of voices - counterpoint - simultaneous
with harmony; each person's agency symbolically combining with each
other's in an overall harmony...

Just like The Matrix movies - the Alt-Right misunderstands the nature of The System; and it does so because it interprets the system's goals in economic, national, racial, sex-political terms.

To analyse Life (including politics) in terms of power-differentials, economics, nationalism, racialism, or sex-politics is objectively and historically Leftism; hence the Alt-Right are (merely) Leftist heretics - and this can be seen by the clear motivation of the movement to take-over The State Apparatus in order to sort-out the economy, harness and encourage national pride, reverse the racism and sexism of the Left and so on.

It's not that these objectives are bad, actually or necessarily, but that these are all Leftist objectives which merely tweak the system without reversing its direction - all of them were historical objectives of radical political movements, mostly in the 18th or 19th century, and all flowed-into modern New Leftism (political correctness, SJWs) for the simple reason that they are this-wordly and gratification-orientated and justified (i.e. utilitarian).

To interpret Life in terms of economic, national, racial, sexual variable just is The Matrix - and it interacts with and amplifies our false selves. To break out from The Matrix requires our true selves perceiving reality beyond sociological abstractions and second-order, short-termist gratifications.

The only true opposition to Leftism would be to put spiritual and religious goals as primary and central to politics; and this isn't something to be smuggled-in when people are looking the wrong way, or on the back of 'sensible' common-sensical reforms to immigration, the economy and the law.

No - if we want to reverse the rocket-propelled sled to suicide and damnation, we must subordinate ALL secular objectives to the primacy of spiritual goals.

Perhaps/ Probably we cannot at this point and from here, go directly to Christianity (although that is the eventual goal); but at least, and as a first-step, we absolutely-must reject the materialism, scientism, positivist, hedonic focus of modernity; and restore spiritual objectives as the natural and universal focus and motivation of human life.

Up into 2010 I was trying to be reasonable. Why? Well, one does, doesn't one?

But what counts as reasonable depends on the system; as as I became more aware of the system I realised that being reasonable in an insane, suicidal system of inverted-Good was, actually, participating in evil.

It was a hope-less strategy - it really was. the more reasonable I was, the more I helped the system (maybe correcting it of excesses, slightly - but not so it would turn around and become good, only so much that the system would be strengthened in its long-term evil).

If you recognise that we live in an Evil Matrix, and that the only thing which can engage with this Matrix is our False Self - then we have to stop being reasonable if we want to live from our True Self. It's just a stark and unavoidable fact.

Of course this tends to produce a feeling of (more-or-less) fear; a kind of primal fear of isolation and scape-goating; which is why a solid Christian faith is necessary for me - I need to know that ultimately (from an eternal perspective - which is, after all, what matters) there is no reason for me to fear the opinions, thoughts and works of evil Men (or demons), or the vicissitudes of mortal life.

That is important, because no other source of courage will suffice, in the final analysis.

So I stopped being reasonable - or at least I stopped trying to be reasonable (I was never very good at it!), stopped even trying to engage. In this I feel sure I was correct - and the alternative strategies and counter-examples of others look to me like object lessons in self-corruption (self-corruption, because in the end evil can only get into our hearts because 1. we invite it, and 2. we refuse to repent our invitation).

(Repentance is our most powerful, and an essential, weapon in this spiritual war; which is why I must be Christian: the necessity and universal availability and infinite power of repentance is an unique Christian insight - although many/ most self-identified Christians fail to acknowledge its centrality.)

Perhaps the most important thing we can do, is not to do - to cease to help, to stop actively assisting the false-reality Matrix in its interaction with the false-selves of the mass of people. Being reasonable helps The System - while being un-reasonable, ceasing to fear, being uncompromising in of personal support of The Good so far as we understand it... all such helps Reality, which is divine, and operates by many, including unknown, pathways.

Also - our main 'act' in this world is thinking - I mean conscious thinking that comes from our real selves: that is the primary act; without which no behaviour, words, nothing can possible be of positive value.

This kind of thinking is difficult - but effectual - always, inevitably, necessarily effectual: Anybody can do it, and nobody can stop you doing it.

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Christianity is based upon love and agency (that is, autonomy of free will); yet these concepts are often understood superficially. In fact, they are deep, metaphysical principles: they are, indeed, a polarity - which means that we can distinguish between love and agency, yet they cannot be divided (the one requires the other).

And this is important because love and agency are both active processes, and it is the interaction of these active processes of love and agency that we can call creation - which is what leads to more love, and more agency.

The importance of love to Christianity scarcely needs emphasis; but it is neglected that love entails agency. Love is not a state of being, rather love is a thing that happens (a process) between agents, and by choice of these agents.

Love can only be a product of free will, and if there is no choice there is no love. One thing cannot love itself, two things cannot love unless that is chosen - a coerced love is not love. So for Christians, for this reason alone as well as other reasons, agency is a necessity.

I think this is fairly clear; but the fact of agency being dependent on love is less clear; because we have tendency to emphasise that agency is not predictable from the causes impinging on an entity (agency entails an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover); and then this truth is misunderstood to mean that agency is arbitrary and 'random'. Then agency gets confused with the models of unpredictable randomness form science - such as quantum theory.

But agency is not randomness; agency comes from the self, it is an 'expression' of the self - indeed agency is when the self is active (not merely responsive). (We are not always agent; but it is only when we are agent that we are as we are ourselves.)

Indeed, agency comes-from the already-existing state of love - which is what binds the universe of agents.

Agency alone (a situation which is impossible) would indeed be randomness (indistinguishable from randomness) - it would be multiple selves simply doing unpredictable things for no reason comprehensible to anything else.

But agency is in a pre-existent situation of love - agency operates from a universe which coheres because of love; therefore agency is expressed from a background in love.

Love is what makes agency agent and purposive; without love there would not be agency but only unpredictability and meaninglessness.

We can indeed see that meaning and purpose are themselves dependent on the continued reality and interaction of love and agency - agency is what divides things so they can be in relation to one another (rather than just being the same thing) while love is what maintains these divided things into a cohesion which is not unity; agency points the direction while love makes coherent that which goes in any direction.

My impression is that most Christians acknowledge the reality of agency, but in a falsely superficial way; they see agency as a gift bestowed y God upon an already-existing situation; they regard agency rather as if it were an 'optional extra' for Man. Yet, if agency is understood as polar with love, then agency is built into the fundamental nature of reality - it is part of the basic design of the universe of creation.

Just as love without agency is not merely flawed but incoherent - not love at all! So agency without love is not merely flawed, but ceases to be agency.

Those (many) people and religions which tend to deny the one (whether it be love or agency) will find that they are gravitationally impelled towards denying the other; because that is the direction which explanation pushes them.

...Love and agency need to be held together in the imagination as a dynamic dyad - distinguishable, but indivisible.

Monday, 21 November 2016

When composer Michael Tippett heard Alfred Deller singing in Canterbury Cathedral, he "felt the centuries roll back" - because he was listening to probably the first solo-quality male alto - or countertenor - since the time of Henry Purcell.

I had the analogous experience listening to Martin Carthy perform King Henry in the Gulbenkian Theatre, Newcastle University, in the late 1970s.

Go to 44:58

The centuries rolled back and I was mentally transported to some medieval feasting hall, listening to the bard weave his magic - and it is indeed a magical ballad.

At an ultimate level, opposition in all things can be taken as a phrase describing the fundamental metaphysical principle that creativity (taken here to be identical with progression in the harmony with God’s creation) must be a product of two distinct and in-a-sense ‘opposed’ principles.

As the ultimate creative act of having a child comes from the interaction of two persons of the two sexes, so spiritual progression comes from the interaction of ‘opposites’; and what these and other creative situations have in common is that there is a ‘polarity’ (to use Coleridge’s term) in which the two sides are distinguishable but not divisible.

There are many similarities between men and women; but there is also a complementarity of nature which goes beyond the specifics of parturition – the feminine has always been recognised as a ‘centripetal’, gathering, unifying principle; and the masculine as a ‘centrifugal’, exploratory and differentiating principle – both of which are required to make that ‘vortex’ of new life and potential that is a child.

At its very deepest possible level of analysis; life (and love, as its basis) is dynamic, active, creative – and this is because fundamental reality is always a polarity.

The patron saint of England is St George who was a Roman soldier of Greek origin born in Palestine, a strange choice for a national hero you might think. However Edward III adopted him for his courage in combating adversity and as an example of the triumph of good over evil, demonstrated by his killing of the dragon. Now the only other saintly dragon killer I am aware of is St Michael who crushed Satan and threw him down to earth after the great rebellion in heaven. So I am led to wonder whether St George is actually a human representative of the archangel and whether England might not, in some way, be also under the patronage of St Michael. Of course, many other places would be too but Michael was apparently the most popular saint in medieval England after St Peter, and before the Reformation many churches were dedicated to him, often on hilltops such as the one on Glastonbury Tor.

The Genius Famine is a wide ranging examination of the nature and potential causes of genius; the possible reasons for its decline; the effects genius has had on human society; and the expected effects of the recent (all-but) disappearance of geniuses of 'world historical' stature.

**

Introduction

This book is about genius: what it is, what it does, where it comes from.
And about geniuses: especially why there used to be so many and now there are so few; what was the effect of an era of geniuses, and what will be the consequences of our current Genius Famine.

This book describes the genius as an Endogenous personality; that is, a person of high intelligence combined with a personality driven from within, an ‘inner’ –orientated personality: that is, a dominated by the Creative Triad of (1) Innate high ability, (2) Inner motivation and (3) Intuitive thinking.
When high intelligence and this type of personality are confluent, a potential genius is the result.

But to fulfil this potential the Endogenous personality must find and accept his own Destiny, and must undergo the trials and tribulations of a Quest before he is likely to be rewarded by an Illumination: a breakthrough.
Even then, the breakthrough must be noticed, understood, accepted, implemented by society at large; and we describe how past societies were much better at recognizing and making a place for the potential genius.

Because the problem is that the Endogenous personality is usually an awkward and asocial character at best; and often an actively unpleasant person and a disruptive influence.
Geniuses are altruistic, in the sense that their work is primarily for the good of the group; and not for the usual social rewards such as status, money, sex, and popularity.
Therefore many geniuses need to be sustained in a long-term way; and their work demands careful attention and evaluation.

We argue that modern societies, by means both indirect and direct, have become hostile to genius and indifferent to the work of those relatively few remaining geniuses.
However, because the work of a genius is necessary and irreplaceable, we argue for a change of attitude. Modern society needs geniuses for its own survival in the face of unfamiliar, often unprecedented, threats.

Therefore, we must in future do a better job of recognizing, sustaining and accepting guidance from as many geniuses of the highest quality that can be found.

Saturday, 19 November 2016

Not found on any of their albums, but from the B-side of their famous hit single Gaudete

And for even more fun:

I didn't hear this version as a youth - but it was released as a single in 1971. Martin Carthy takes the lead vocal.

Now, why is this so very good? 1. Carthy is a genius. 2. The arrangement and backing singers are superb. 3. Although in a sense it is a parody, being an unaccompanied folk version of a 50s single with exceptionally banal lyrics - it is done with absolute seriousness and performed at the highest standard of polish.

(It is a common but fatal error to imagine that parodies can, or should, be done badly; when in fact the better they are performed, the better they work. I once saw (in a Newcastle Dental Students Revue, 1977) a really amusing take-off of Glenn Miller's In The Mood done with kazoos to replace the brass and saxaphone sections - with the kazoo players thoroughly rehearsed; standing and sitting in groups, and to take improvised solos, just like 'the real thing'.)

Because if the material (five sense) reality is 'everything' - the only acknowledged reality; then if they control the material realm (which they potentially can do); then they control us- wholly.

(By contrast, when people acknowledge a non-material realm of reality as real and vital - then no absolute control of the population is possible.)

2. Only Mortality.

When our mortal life is the only recognised life - and when people believe that nothing of our soul survives death; then one who controls our mortal life thereby controls our entire possible reality, inescapably.

(By contrast, when a person knows that something of them survives bodily death, then he always has hope of escape from any earthly mortal situation - such hope makes Men harder to control, therefore it is better for them that Men despair.)

3. Utilitarianism.

Modern mainstream morality is utilitarian - that is, it aspires to provide the greatest level of gratification (maximum pleasure, minimum pain) for the greatest number or proportion of people.

(Or, more recently - since political correctness, the greatest gratification for the people who most greatly deserve it.)

For utilitarianism: Those who control emotions control morality. And can have their concept of The Good open-endedly re-directed, even to the point of inversion.

(By controlling perceptual inputs; e.g. getting everyone hooked on the mass media, by training them to ignore or deny the evidence of their senses and common sense, and putatively by modifying human perceptions via technology. And by manipulating psychological responses; e.g. with training, with drugs, or genetic engineering, and putatively with 'micro-chipping'.)

(By contrast, one who regards morality as objective and God-given, cannot have their morality grossly re-shaped or reversed.)

*

On the plus side; the above analysis implies that someone who recognises the spiritual realm, who has faith in life beyond biological death and who regards The Good as an aspect of God's creation can never wholly be controlled by any earthly power.

Friday, 18 November 2016

Above clip is from Wayne's World (1992) - one of my favourite ever comedies - and the follow-up is equally good.

There is often, even perhaps usually, an emphasis on encouraging a belief in the 'unworthiness' of Men in most Christian churches...

Well, in the ultimate analysis, this is not only false, but an offensive attitude for Men to attribute to God, our creator; because for God Himself, His beloved children certainly are worthy!

Even normally-good parents would not want for their own children to regard themselves as 'unworthy' of parental love and care. That would be a monstrous thing for a parent to believe!

As William Arkle wrote:

Once upon a time there was a wonderful God sitting on his throne amidst a great light who's expression was of magnificent beauty, glory and power.

Around the throne were countless people enjoying his presence and worshipping him with songs and praise. But one of that number noticed that every now and again God gave him a wink.

At first he thought it must be an illusion but it happened again and again.

Finally, one day the crowd moved and drifted about in such a way that he came very close to God. Then again he saw the wink and the look straight at him, just him amongst all those others, and he heard a whisper: Hey, come round the back after that last show, if you can spare the time.

Well of course he did go. So after the last performance that night, round the back there was this God waiting.

Hallo, God said, come up here to my little hill overlooking the sea, I would like you to come and sit with me on my lawn and Daisy patch. We can have a cup of tea together and a pipe and look at the view.I love to take my costume off at the end of the day and relax.

Although I have all that worship and praise, there are times when I like to get away from it all and be quiet. I like to come here and look at the sea on a lovely day, with the mountains beyond and the feeling of this little garden up here on the hill. For although I have so many beautiful children to look after and enjoy, and although they say such nice things about me and serve me in every sort of way... I get so lonely...

You see, I don't have many friends.
No one recognises me after the show when my make-up is off.

I have to be like you saw me, for they all expect it of me; but I am more delighted than you can imagine that you have come here with me so that we can sit together and I can show you this small garden and the view from my heart.

This electric folk version of a Robin Hood ballad is something which I always find very cheerful and Christmassy - reminding me in particular of Christmas 1975, just after Steeleye Span released the All Around My Hat (from which this comes) - a time when I was deeply 'into' electric folk music amd avidly learning the accordion - which I played in a duo with my then best friend Gareth Jones (yes, he was Welsh); who could sing well, act out a song, and play electric bass or flute with remarkable verve and facility.

Altogether a period of creativity and anticipation; and one I am pleased to be reminded-of.

It is a good first example of electric folk to play to your young children to get them keen on traditional music. It worked for me! Maybe they could be shown this version?

The question is the bread and butter of online anti-Left discourse, and the theme of a million conversations and hundreds of books - what should we do to defeat the Left?... But the question is wrongly-framed, and can lead only to false, counter-productive answers.

What should 'we' do, what should we 'do', to 'defeat'... these words reveal a false world view underpinning the debate; they reveal - indeed - unresolved Leftism in those who purport to oppose the Left.

When the modern condition is understood; it is also understood that there is no 'we' in the same sense as there really is a 'them' - the asymmetry is the whole point at issue. The asymmetry is that the Left is doing one thing - which is strategically working for destruction of Good in all its manifestations - while the opponents of the Left are doing many things, according to their concept of The Good.

The Left is anti-Religion; but the anti-Left is - can only be - pro-Religion; however, there are many religions.

So while there is truly a 'them', an Establishment and those who serve them; there is no 'us'.

And because there is no 'us' then we cannot 'do' anything; and we cannot 'defeat' the Left.

Is this bad news, is it a counsel of despair? Well, not if you really are anti-Left; because then you will perceive the situation spiritually not politically; and you will regard the Left as a spiritual movement that is aiming at spiritual corruption then inversion.

(i.e. The Left is ultimately about damnation, not about politics, economics, psychology etc - all those are just a front.)

The very reason that we must reject the Left or face damnation and extinction is that by now the Left has very fully succeeded in its aims. The Leftist perspective is very pervasive among Western populations and it dominates all the major social institutions wherethey work, which regulate them, from where they get the continual information and entertainment infusions to which they are utterly addicted: in thrall.

In other words, The West really is spiritually rotten; we really are very corrupted and our value system is to an unprecedented extent inverted. This is a fact of here, and now.

Therefore - as things stand - there is not 'us' and 'them': we are almost-all 'them' to a greater or lesser extent; which means that 'we' cannot - and I mean cannot, not merely that it is difficult - make any kind of quasi-political alliance to defeat 'them'; again because there is no 'we'.

From where we are here-and-now, with the populations we actually have; any group assembled with the intention of opposing Leftism is itself going to be substantially Leftist - and fighting for aspects of what were historically aspects of Leftism.

(This seems very obvious to me! Nationalism, pro-racism, prosperity, liberty, constitutionalism and rule of law... these are Old Left ideas, that Old Left which was powerless to resist New Left takeover.)

The implication is clear - which is that no constructive change is possible until after there is an 'us', as well as a 'them'. We first need to undo the corruption of spirit which pervades almost everybody in The West. We need to make an 'us'.

We don't need to undo Leftism in everyone all at once (which is anyway impossible) - but there does need to be a start made; there needs to be a substantial number and proportion of people, a cohesive group, who actually have repented and reformed themselves sufficiently; who have identified their own key errors and sins, and repented them; there needs to be a group of (more or less) spiritually enlightened people.

At present, the situation is that There Just Isn't. There is nothing remotely approaching a group of anti-Left people who are themselves sufficiently free from the Leftist taint to do anything to 'defeat' Leftism: there just isn't!

This is why I keep banging-on about the absolute necessity for Spiritual Awakening - and that this must come first. I must come first because if it does not come, then we will just be having Left-versus-Left office politics, and Establishment infighting - jostling for power to impose various rival brands of Leftism.

Which is exactly (and only) what we so far have post-Brexit, post-Trump - indeed, how could it be otherwise?

If we want anything more and different, then we must turn to the spiritual side as a basis for it. And there is no arguing with must!

Thursday, 17 November 2016

The US seems to be getting a dose of that post-election Establishment engineered and funded hate-mongering which was also - but less successfully - tried in the UK after Brexit.

In other words the mainstream Leftist institutions of the state (politics, civil administration, police, law and the charities and NGOs) collude with the mass media to cause, organise, pay-for, misreport, mislabel, amplify and encourage civil disorder under the pretense it is a spontaneous popular uprising against what was actually a spontaneous popular expression of popular will.

Hatred among the defeated Establishment and their supporters and clients is being stoked-up and rationalised and excused; and the victims of this hatred are... well, the mass of ordinary people.

How should this be interpreted?

Well, my warning is that the 'political' level of understanding about this matter is mistaken and counter-productive.

The mainstream and secular Right seem to interpret this strategic mass hate-mongering as a political 'push-back' designed to reverse (or neutralise) Brexit/ the Trump Presidency.

But it isn't. It is much worse.

This is the attempt to provoke mutual hatred, fear, and resentment for its own sake, to poison the motivations of everybody; not to achieve some political end. The Establishment want a permanent state-of-hate in The West - regardless of the political consequences.

They want the Leftists, the politically correct, the social justice warriors, and their pandered victim groups (feminists, sexual revolutionaries, antiracists etc) to be in a constant state of hatred towards the ordinary people - and they want this feeling to be mutual.

The point is that for the global conspiracy; hatred is the goal - and they don't want either side to win!

They want to create in The West the same kind of situation they have so successfully created and perpetuated in The Middle East - that is a constant state of negative spiritual warfare, without resolution, with no winners but only losers and everyone a loser.

We need to get a better measure of the scale of evil we are up against - this is not politics-as-usual; this is demonic strategy with the gloves-off.

Over the past couple of years I have fully engaged with the writings of Owen Barfield, and incorporated some of his key ideas and perspectives into my thinking; one of these is dividing human consciousness into three phases: Original Participation, the Consciousness Soul and Final Participation.

This sequence is primarily concerned with human society, or civilisation through hunter gatherer, agrarian and industrial phases and pointing at the destined future - but also corresponds to the development of Man from birth to mature adulthood.

Thus the consciousness of Original Participation can be seen both in the 'childhood of Man' (the earliest, simplest and most spontaneous society: the hunter gatherer life), and also in each Man's childhood.

*

I became extremely engaged with understanding the hunter gatherer mind some twenty years ago - by immersion in all sorts of books on the subject; both by leading twentieth century academics (mostly anthropologists) who lived among such people (or among those who had recently been hunter gatherers) and also by looking at some examples of 'first contact' literature from previous centuries when a variety of people - e.g. explorers, missionaries - described their encounters with hunter gatherers.

My interest was then focused on spontaneous animism; or the way in which hunter gatherers - and young children - interpreted the world 'anthopomorphically', or socially; in terms of being a collection of person-like agents. So large animals (such as the bear) or environmental objects both living (such as a tree) and 'non-living' (such as a mountain) would be understood as persons, each with a character, motivations, desires and intentions.

Thus, for the hunter gatherer the whole world was social; a web of relationships. And if we can remember and introspect about our own early childhoods, we can perceive that it was the same situation for each of us; we used to see the world as social, as full of living and conscious entities.

(This may also re-emerge in altered states of cosnciousness - such as the 'paranoid' delusions of self-reference in psychotic illnesses, or in some types of brain pathology, or some types of drug intoxication. The social perspective seems to be something of a default.)

*

The perspective of Barfield brings a further aspect to this subject; which is to notice that for the hunter gatherer the Self was much less developed and distinct than it is for us (living at an advanced stage of the Consciousness Soul); the individual hunter-gatherer is not, therefore, very aware of himself as an individual - does not perceive a line of demarcation separating himself and 'the world' (when 'the world' includes both the society of other people, and the society of significant entities in the environment - bear, tree, mountain etc.).

The hunter gatherer participates in the world because he perceives no separation between himself and the world; and much the same applies to young children even nowadays. But as civilisation developed, grew, became specialised... each Man separated from the world, and perceived life as himself one one side of a line, and everything else on the other side - losing the sense of participating in the world, and feeling more-and-more like a detached observer.

Indeed, matters have reached such a point, that we even feel detached from our own thoughts - that is, the thought in our minds are not regarded as the same thing as our-selves.

The disadvantages of the modern condition are obvious enough - alienation from life, and despair. But the advantages were also perceived by Barfield, drawing from the early work of his master Rudolf Steiner. The key word is freedom. By separating our perceived self from the world, the self becomes free.

The hunter gatherer is hardly free, because he hardly feels himself separate from the flow of the human and other environment in which he lives; and much the same applies to the young child. Modern Man in the Consciousness Soul phase is, by contrast, in a position in which he may becomes free, may be able to stand apart from the influences on his life; and consciously, deliberately, in full self-awareness exercise his divine creativity as a source of original thought, and potentially other actions as well as thought (although Steiner clearly described that it was in Thinking that Man primarily was free).

The equivalent phase to the Consciousness Soul for the developing Man is adolescence; when a man becomes conscious of himself (self-conscious) apart from other people - and this becomes 'a problem'.

As for growing-up into Final Participation; Barfield (and Steiner) would say that this seldom happens in the way that it should - it happens to few people (and only partly and intermittently) and has not yet happened to any human society. Final Participation would be a state of consciousness which retains the autonomy and freedom of The Self (which emerged during the consciousness soul) but returns to a felt-participation-in The World; but a participation of a new type.

*

The way I envisage Final Participation is that we participate in The World through loving relationships; in the sense that only an autonomous self, distinct from other selves, can love. And this means that in order to participate we must (again) recognise the world as wholly alive and conscious - just as was the case when we were young children, or as did hunter gatherers.

So, we have much to learn from hunter gatherers, and from young children - but not so as we can go back to that form of consciousness, but so that we personally - and also our modern societies - can go forward to Final Participation in which we would have 'the best of both worlds': both and simultaneously the felt-and-lived engagement with the world typical of hunter gatherers and children, and also the freedom and distinct individuality of the Consciousness Soul.

Final Participation, I would therefore regard as the destiny of each Man, and of Mankind as a whole - if we choose to accept it.

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

I was fortunate, last night, that I took a walk at a time just before the Lunar Perigee when the moon approaches her closest to earth - and that (for a couple of minutes) the solid cloud covering parted to reveal her. Then, this morning at 05:30 I got a full and clear view as she rode down towards the horizon. ...

The real point about the lunar perigee (as about all phenomena) is consciousness and communication.

Of course there are negative signs - such as a withdrawal from the consumerism and materialism of modern life (reduced economic activity, failure of new fashions in clothes and goods, a retail slump, fewer Christmas cards and less expensive presents!).

Simple labelling of deliberate ugliness and the subversion and marring of beauty as such.

A wave of truth-telling and insistence on honesty (refusal to sign, refusal to vote, refusal to participate in lying and misleading - done at the cost of personal disadvantage).

Most vitally repentance; by which I mean an explicit admission that 'I' was wrong, 'I personally' propagated falsehoods.

Use of the morality of transcendental motivation and aims in an eternal perspective (beyond death and human perception or memory).

Explicit rejection of a morality of comparative human behaviour.

Explicit rejection of the modern notion of hypocrisy i.e. failing to live up to ideals - as the ultimate sin; and instead an insistence in the correctness of ideals as the primary necessity for morality (because free speech, tolerance etc are all subordinate and relative to the primary ideals).

(Better to have an flawed person aiming at the proper ideals; than a well-behaved, intelligent, charismatic, intelligent, beautiful person engaged in the subversion and inversion of Goodness.)

Increased public, explicit, referencing and discussing of the non-material world; that beyond the five senses and the measurable - acknowledgement and celebration of the fact that the world is a larger place than that...

Baby steps indeed - but necessary; and a radical reversal of the trend of many decades.

Monday, 14 November 2016

Hardly anybody participating in public discourse seems objectively to understand our present condition in an explicit fashion. By why I mean a mere handful of persons that I have encountered.

The Christian churches, even leaving-out 'Liberals' and focusing only on those who are serious Christians, have near zero comprehension of the fact that modern people live in a false reality like the Matrix movie: that public discourse in politics, business, and all large organisations takes place inside a world defined by the mass media and an interlinked bureaucracy ruled by a global conspiracy of wealth and power.

Consequently, the churches themselves, and the mass of individual Christian people in particular, are grossly and dangerously naive (stupid) about the fact that they are living-out their lives inside a system of evil manipulative falsehood; but are believing it, and praying about it...

(A lot of modern Christian time and spiritual energy is spent praying-for-the-success-of, and raising-money-for, strategically anti-Christian people, institutions, plans and projects.)

In a nutshell - modern Christians do not realise that The Establishment is primarily demonic - and that therefore the rich, powerful and high status people of this world are of evil intent and effect; they are The Problem not the solution, that they are among the worst of humans, and their agenda is one of damnation.

(This includes many/ most of most self-identified Christian church leaders and functionaries - and not just politicians, financier, journalists and media celebs - but top scientists, artists, poets and writers and musicians, lawyers, the military and police; and the vast worlds of medicine and education and so on. The Whole Lot. There are a few exceptions - but as a strong generalisation: The Whole Lot.)

Modern Christians are therefore trying to live a Christian life while believing demonic lies, in an Bizarro demonic world where truth, beauty and virtue are inverted!

*

Meanwhile, the conspiracy theorists who accurately understand the extent and thoroughness and success of that programme of deception and manipulation inside which we live; are hopelessly wrong about the aim of the Matrix.

Conspiracy theorists are nearly always atheistic, anti-Christian (especially anti-church); and are either materialists or only vaguely spiritual; such that they reject (as pure manipulation) any narrative of salvation and damnation. Therefore, the morality of conspiracy theorists is utilitarian and based on the promotion of mortal human happiness and avoidance of suffering.

So conspiracy theorists see the evilness of the global Establishment conspiracy as being the desire to create suffering and cause death. They focus on the destructiveness of wars and health scandals, infliction of poverty, enslavement, starvation, disease, mass poisoning and so forth...

Yet the basic fact of life under the evil Establishment over the past half century has been a massive increase in world population, and hugely-improved life expectancy and standard of living. Te basic facts refute the conspiracy theorists IF evil is seem in terms of human suffering and death.

But Christians know that evil does not ultimately aim at suffering and death - these are merely things that evil likes. The goal of evil is the damnation of souls - and the global conspiracy is not to torment and kill people but instead it is a conspiracy to damn souls - that is, to stop people accepting Christ's gift of salvation.

The only sure way to damnation, is for each Man to seek his own damnation; for each to want to be damned in preference to salvation.

That is why we live in a Bizarro world where - increasingly - all values are inverted; and in public, professional, official, legal, as well as media discourse such inversions are already 'normal' and increasingly mandatory - indeed inversion is now being imposed even among friends and within the family; since individuals being 'denounced' for private non-politically correct comments has for the past generation been widely encouraged and celebrated.

*

So the basic situation is that modern Man (including nearly-all Christians) inhabit:

1. A fundamentally dishonest and manipulation Matrix simulation; that is

2. Operated by demonic intelligences and their slaves, servants and dupes;

3. Whose ultimate aim is the damnation of as many people as possible.

Since this is reality - it can be seen that both Christians and conspiracy theorists are nearly-always seriously wrong about Life, and that only a combination of the two perspectives can capture the essence of the basic situation.

Sunday, 13 November 2016

I was delighted to discover that the main theme is the spiritual awakening of a modern, Western, materialistic man (the extreme of this typical type) to discover reality beyond the five senses. Which is almost the most important and relevant topic it possibly could have.

As well as its unusually deep core; the movie is very varied, with plenty of humour, some very appealing screen pictures, and impressive fight and action scenes - also a few touching episodes, one of which drew a tear.

The principals (Benedict Cumberbatch and Tilda Swinton) are both impressive - as these actors usually are.

In sum - go see it, if you like that kind of thing.

Note added - I saw Doctor Strange with my wife and three kids between 14 and 17; and we all thoroughly appreciated it. I should also clarify that this is not a Christian movie - obviously not (being a mainstream Hollywood production) - but at core it does the things most needful for spiritual awakening. Somehow, this message was smuggled-out... thanks to whoever did it.

Although we are immersed in a system of brainwashing, and in a sense we passively absorb it via the mass media and the social institutions such as propaganda from politics, government, law, education and so forth... this is not the ultimate truth of the situation.

Ultimately brainwashing is something we do to ourselves.

Yes, we are manipulated; but we seek-out and surrender to the manipulation; and so we personally, individually, are to blame for it.

We hear of problems (hear about them not usually from our own experience, but from media propaganda) and them give our own power away in clamouring for 'them' to 'do something about it' - put a stop to it, or make it happen.

In our attitude to Life in general (for example the mass media) we seek-out those who influence us; we surrender our self to manipulation. We encourage the other to create emotion in us, to shape our emotions, to implant motivations into us...

We deliberately connect with sources that we want to tell us what is important, what is most worth thinking about, how to feel about things - what we should aim for and how to lead our lives - how to spend our money and use our time - who to admire and who to despise...

We allow, no we actively encourage Them to fill our minds with negative emotions such as fear, greed, envy, hate, resentment and lust.

We go to immense lengths to enable this surrender of of self to shaping by others whose motivations we know are Not Good.

(Seriously... We seek-out and submit-to the mass media! Of all people, of all institutions! - the Mass Media. Really?)

We are manipulated; but we have created our own manipulation.

We. Are. To. Blame. Each one of us is to blame; the answer lies in our own hands.

Saturday, 12 November 2016

It's funny, but in my mind I often label secular Leftist arguments as 'magical thinking' - yet on this blog I often advocate... magical thinking. In other words, recognition of the world beyond the five senses (and scientific measurements).

So, is magical thinking good or bad? The answer is magical thinking is bad (incoherent) if it is based on a metaphysics that rejects the validity of magic; but merely rational if the metaphysical foundations include 'supernatural' realities.

So, what is wrong with the 'magical thinking' of the Left is that they have chosen to accept only a materialist universe of whirling atoms making partly deterministic, partly random patterns (which are only patterns in the mind of a beholder, not objectively); in which death is extinction, and life has no objective purpose or meaning... A life with no base or basis; and yet they speak of, and are attached to, magic hopes.

Of course, this is a good thing from the point of view of their possible salvation - since they continue to recognise what is necessary; even as, with another part of the mind, they reject its reality. At some point they may become aware of their cognitive dissonance, and do something effectual about it.

But for someone like me it would be dishonest not to practise and advocate magical thinking! Indeed, it is a habit I need to cultivate - and perhaps this need is primary.

Magical not in terms of 'ritual magic', which is a quasi-scientific attempt to control the world (in practise, nearly always for personal gain); but in terms of recognising and trying to understand the wide world of causes and entities, outwith the bounds recognised by modern consciousness.

Thinking is potentially the way in which we overcome the alienation and division of modernity; it is the mode in which we are complete, integrated and in communication with the divine.

In other words, nothing is more important than Thinking - or than Thinking could be: Necessary Thinking (or what Coleridge called Imagination).

But Necessary Thinking is not the one we currently have in The West - neither is it how things used to be; it is something new.

However, although the necessary Thinking is new, it is not obscure, weird or unfamiliar in its form; it does not require a changed state of consciousness (like a trance); rather it is alert, purposive and simply a complete, inclusive form of the Thinking we already have.

*

What is wrong with current Thinking - as it is trained into us, made habit, and reinforced by public discourse - is that it is both horribly narrow and also fragmented.

Firstly, current Thinking excludes as invalid all thought that do not originate in sensory perceptions (including scientific and quantitative measurements).

What happens is that current Thinking labels each incoming thought as either valid or non-valid on the basis of its provenance (i.e. where it comes-from); and non-valid thoughts include 'the imaginary', memories, arts and literature, music, fantasies and anything of unknown (to the senses) origin.

I can illustrate how this works from my own experience. I was deeply influenced by the works of Tolkien from the age of 13; but my thoughts derived from Tolkien were pre-labelled as 'fiction' or 'fantasy' and kept apart from the Thinking concerned with public discourse - things I talked with others about, stuff for examination, aspects of my work etc.

The Tolkien-derived thoughts were relegated to a thread of 'fantasy' which I was allowed to visit for pleasurable distraction, but which was prevented from interacting with 'serious' matters.

As another example; when my Mother died I was intuitively convinced that she was not extinct but in some way remained; however, I still a few years from being a Christian; and therefore this knowledge was labelled something like 'wishful thinking' - best kept to myself; or at most 'symbolism' - meaning it was not literally true that my Mother remained alive, but this was an interpretation (maybe of genetics) that was useful in my leading a fulfilling life. However, there was no place for this knowledge in the serious and publicly-shared Thinking about my life, work, and the world.

*

This is what modern people do. They have all kinds of spontaneous thoughts on all kinds of subjects - but the great majority of these thoughts are pre-labelled non-valid (for one reason or another) and excluded from public discourse.

Public discourse is therefore made from the processing of a tiny 'assumed-valid' sub-sample of our spontaneous thoughts.

This is meagre basis for Thinking is bad enough - but matters are made worse by the way in which assumed-valid thoughts are treated as discrete.

Because each thought needs to be evaluated separately, our Thinking is broken-up into thoughts in order that we can pre-evaluate each thought; and most thoughts are rejected as non-valid.

We then find that we cannot recombine even that small proportio of our validated thoughts - cannot join them into a fluid and integrated stream of Thinking.

Our modern Thinking is therefore impaired - not just by expulsion of most thoughts, but also by the fact that each assumed-valid thought must retain its autonomy - such that we are trying (but failing) to build a fluid stream of Thinking from something like solid spheres...

Instead of an integrated stream of Think-ing; we simply have a sequence of thoughts; thoughts lined-up but each detached from each other; in an order which seems arbitrary, and having no meaning greater than each individual thought.

*

Modern Thinking is segmented and censored - and I think this is imposed and learned from early childhood (in my case, from about five years old onwards) until the point it becomes ingrained, habitual, taken-for-granted and invisible. We are it.

From this maimed Thinking modern Man cannot derive any meaning, neither can we derive any purpose or direction. Tis is the modern condition of alienation.

(And Religion makes little difference; because our Thinking about religion is simply a part of this maimed Thinking. We have individual thoughts about religion; but the religious mode of Thinking is modern, hence alienated; and we do not feel meaning or purpose - we merely have belifs-about meaning and purpose.)

We are absolutely stuck; unless we can change our mode of Thinking.

*

Necessary Thinking (or true Imagination) is a mode in which everything which comes to mind is included a part of the stream of thinking.

So that Necessary Thinking includes all those thoughts which modern Man regards as imaginary, fantasy, memories; it includes 'random' thoughts, 'errors', 'misunderstandings'... it is open to all sources and kinds of thoughts; and these are allowed to flow, combine, coalesce, extend - or rather they are never broken-up into discrete 'thought' in the first place, but Thinking is allowed to be a truly fluid stream of consciousness.

But Necessary Thinking is not passive - it is always alert, conscious, purposive.

Nor does True Imagination simply accept everything which comes out of it; rather everything is evaluated - but it is not individual 'thoughts' which are evaluated, but instead we evaluate the product of fluid, open, spontaneous, inclusive Think-ing.

And this True Imagination (or Necessary Thinking) is, ultimately, what we mortal incarnate Men Live-In - it is where our Selves are located.

And this is how grown-up men and women are meant to Be.

(Note: Imagination/ Necessary Thinking is also the state that Owen Barfield called Final Participation.)